HELL-The
Christian Dilemma
Love-
ours and God's - of universal humanity
To
love an enemy, effectively, is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, Christ
calls on us to call our enemies friends and to treat them as friends.
There
is a certain way in which one can love man that one could not do unless one
first loved God. However, there is also a way in which one can love God that,
because of the particular conception of God being loved, does not issue in that
quality of love for man that is consequent upon a genuine love for God.
Our
love for God should be directed towards man. For himself, God does not want us
to love him as he loved us but that we love one another as God loved us. In
other words, God does not want us to sacrifice ourselves or give up anything of
our own for his sake. Indeed, more often that not such an understanding will only
mean that we will want to sacrifice ourselves for our own sakes, i.e. to
achieve our own salvation. God wants us to sacrifice ourselves for humanity,
for our fellow human beings- for it is this which God himself did, in Jesus.
Jesus' life, which is the Christian’s command to imitate, was not a long,
rigorous attempt to achieve his own salvation (how could God fear an eternal
exile from God?) but rather to achieve the salvation of the world or, as it
were, other people. His sacrifice was
to them, not to God. What he gave up he gave up for humanity, not to any other
end- not to God, to persuade him of own his worth or to meet some personal need
God had for him to give up his life to him. God is fully sufficient in himself
and needs nothing for himself from us. Just as he didn’t from Jesus. It is not
God but Satan who takes from us and cleverly makes us take from one another. By
contrast, in need of nothing in himself, God abundantly gives himself to us in
all things, even unto death; and only asks that we give ourselves abundantly,
not to him, not to God, but to our fellow men in all things - even unto death.
God would be inferior to us if he needed anything from us. Inferior
beings take, superior beings give. The true interest and health of the inferior
is served by taking from the superior its substance, in order to satisfy its
own need to become superior. Similarly, the true interest and need of the superior
is to facilitate this process, to raise up the inferior to its own level, by
giving its substance to it. This is the correct order of the operation of
growth and of love. It is the upsetting of this order that leads to chaos- and
the manner by which it is upset is through a reversal of these roles. If the
superior, instead of giving to the inferior, takes from it, the superior,
having received the substance of the inferior, will become inferior, whilst the
inferior, no longer capable of taking from the superior, will possess no way in
which to advance. Thus, both will now be inferior and there will be no way out
forward for either.
God is superior to man and man is
superior to Satan. One can now see how all is wrong. Instead of God willingly,
joyfully, giving himself to a humanity that in return willingly, joyfully
receives him, man gives himself to God and, through the anthropomorphism of religion,
God receives man's attributes and becomes like him - that is, brought down to
man’s level. Instead of man happily imparting to a joyful and receptive Lucifer
the light of life that man receives from God, Lucifer feeds man with the
Knowledge of good and evil and Man accepts this ‘gift’ in his incessant flight
from innocence, in self-exaltation and in judgement. And so, in consequence,
that being, Lucifer, who needs above all to receive, to take, becomes the
supreme head and principle of the universe, being its fundamental provider; and
God, from whom light and innocence require to be taken, becomes instead the
great receiver, and in consequence, the object of all our self-sacrificing
worship. God now gives us nothing, while what he has to give will restore us. Lucifer
now gives us everything, while what he has to give destroys us.
God,
by loving himself across and between the two poles of existence, each at
different ends and extremities of the creation, embraces and encloses the
creation in that love. God journeys, through death and damnation, to the
distant extremities of the created, immanent poles to do this.
The
fruit of our love for God is our love for our fellow men. When we are raptured
in the love of God, in union with God, we exit the creation in our hearts and
souls while remaining within the creation in our bodies. Thus, from the divine
perspective - outside the creation - even though nonetheless through senses and
a body, we perceive afresh with new eyes of love a humanity and world as God
and Jesus perceive it.Whereas before, in our fears and blindness, we wanted to
judge and mock the world, protect ourselves from it, exploit it for our own
ends and account ourselves better than others, now in our eternal comfort and
joy, in our opened vision, we want only to love the world and to sacrifice
ourselves for it, to serve it and to liberate it; and we want this not for
duty's sake but from a pure prompting of love and longing after the divine, in
which we would willingly see ourselves crushed if only it would help unite our
fellow men with us in this ineffable, divine love.
If
God damns God, God is no longer free to damn man, by which I mean man is no
longer free to damn another man in God's
name. Only man can damn himself, by not letting his own sins be forgiven by
God. By accepting the forgiveness of sins, we enable God, as he wishes, to take
possession of our hearts and implant the spirit of his son within us. Now in
this new spirit we seek to follow God not out of terror but out of love, Christ’s
own love for his father, our father, operating through us.
In
the Incarnation, did Christ assume Adam's pre-fallen humanity or his post-fallen
humanity? As to his human nature, was he perfect or imperfect? Could Jesus
really have known our temptations and combatted them as he did if he possessed
a perfect humanity as opposed to our own imperfect one? Was it not, in fact,
that Christ became our own imperfect, fallen humanity and joined his divinity
to that; and not to this notion of a mysterious ideal of a pre-fallen humanity?
After all, to be ‘very human’: what does that mean? To be very much like us or to be very much what we ought to have been? If the
latter, Jesus does not speak to us, his dialogue is only with God. If the
former, would he have been free of Original Sin, however? Of course not. But
could he then still have been sinless, and, as such, a perfect atoning sacrifice
to God? Yes, if there is not and never had been such a thing as Original Sin, and
that then by sinless we mean only that he was not overcome by Darkness. As a
mere fallen human, like one of us, not only is God’s condescension, his
empathy, but also his resistance to temptation, all the more splendid and
astonishing. For then, his strength to resist temptation came not with the
assistance of an uncorrupted human nature, as if he possessed some natural
fleshly advantage over us but was rather wrought with and in the same flesh as
ours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although
God cannot force us to love him, he does have the freedom to be crucified for
as long as it takes to evoke this love from us.
To
love one person and not the whole universe is theft.
In
order to be just one need not love, but if one loves, one surpasses justice. Justice
commands as a duty only that one administer justice- not that one love an
enemy, forgive a criminal or resurrect a universe out of love. It is the
injustice of God's death that saves a damned universe and nothing else.
It
is not merely that God has given the universe the opportunity to save itself. It
is his own personal desire that it be saved. Will then the will of God be
defied?
Not
only do we want, if necessary, to suffer and die for the sakes of others. We do
not want to be thanked or praised for it. For we wish to think this way of
living eminently normal, quite unremarkable - as indeed in any healthy world it
surely would be. It is not love that is extraordinary but the lack of it. It is
this world, its values and standards, that is so weird and strange. Christianity
- the only religion depicting God directly and voluntarily embracing the
suffering of the creation - cannot be understood if it is not understood as a
Gospel, as good news, promising the
consummate fulfilment of all the wishes and hopes of all beings- namely, the
absolute alleviation and annihilation of all suffering everywhere- in Heaven,
on Earth, and to the depths of hell. Teaching may get rid of error, but only
the death of God can destroy death. If God has died, if the fate of the mortal
has become the choice of the immortal, the joy of the mortal has been swallowed
up in love. God died to destroy death- that much is clear. Did he then fail?
Love
overthrows the world by negating fear, the cornerstone on which it rests, the
dark fountain from which all its disorders flow.
We
have to wonder- what happens to a soul when it is endowed with an abundance, a
superfluity of love, such that its entire being resonates with an
insuppressible, incorruptible love for all things which exist?
To
refute, to deny and tear down the reality of God's abundant, impassable,
irrevocable love for what he has created- this is the ambition of the
"powers of darkness." Yet this infantile, stunted adolescent passion
will cease. The only significant
question to ask is: how long will it take before repentance, before metanoia; or,
to put it another way: when will we stop
crucifying Jesus?
Unless
one identifies with the fate of another, one will never truly love that other.
Each member of the union of love is held captive by the concern and attention
of the other. Love never abandons the object of its love and follows it with
selfless devotion wherever it goes; however so much the beloved hates its
lover, however vigorously the beloved wishes to be severed from its lover.
Every
sin is a sin against man and against the creation. We can neither hurt God nor touch God. But every sin against the creation is a sin
against God for that very reason - because it is a sin against the creation.
It
is the fact that we cannot hurt God that makes possible God's impassable,
abundant love for us. It is because to
God we are but a small, frail, vulnerable child, ignorant and blind, that God
will never hurt us. To ask God to damn
any of us is to ask God to be a child murderer - a misdirected and fruitless
request if ever there was one.
The
next stage in the development of mankind will be an emotional enlightenment- a decisive war waged against our present
condition that allows us to view a stranger from afar or even sit next to our
neighbour and hate him and murder him in our hearts.
It
is God who is above every heaven and below every hell, who both suffers in no
way and in every conceivable way. It is he who in all infinity holds finitude
in the all-encompassing hands of his unquenchable love.
Let
us not demand that we agree with one another.
But let us certainly demand that we love one another. For where there is
no love, life has not even the possibility of beginning..
It
just happens to be the case that humanity, that "human nature" is
selfish- it needn't be. If it were not and the mind caught hold of the notion
of salvation, it would not ask "how can I be saved?" but "how
can I save?"
Unlike
created beings, God exists beyond death and without death. We created beings exist before death, towards
death and in death. Whereas we subside
towards death involuntarily- preferring as we would to live forever, neither
having to fear death or taste death - God embraces death, indeed an alien
death, voluntarily desiring, as he does, that we escape death and live
forever. For it is clear, if that which
is immortal dies out of will in substitution for the death of the mortal, the
mortal can no longer die, since the love of God has compelled him.
God
can die if he wants to. He can take upon himself the exotic if he wishes. Who
can stop him? Who will tell him what to do?
It
is normal for man to die. It is only for
God that death is strange. Is God
frightened of death, of the alien, the peculiar, the "wholly other"? Is mankind frightened of immortality, of the
alien, the peculiar, the "wholly other"? The marriage of humankind and God, a delight
and hope that God has striven for for millennia, can only come to pass through
the overthrowing and dismantling of what divides them: death.
Having
renounced amortality through egotism, the mortal has become enchained in the
labyrinthine snares of death. To become
immortal - which is no longer his choice as it was before the fall - is not a
task that the mortal can achieve on its own but must be achieved for him by God
on his behalf. This is the love of God,
perpetually penetrating and suffusing the dead creation, taking upon itself
mercifully the death that the mortal afflicts it with, entreating the creation
to the necessary response.
The
creation of the universe and the crucifixion of God prove that only in one
sense and not another is God sufficient in himself. For only with the
glorification of his creations is God fulfilled and at rest, when he is no
longer without an autonomous being with which to share himself.
I
do not understand why it cannot be the desire of the Christian that all the
creation should be saved. Is not this a pure and noble desire? Personally, I had always believed this is
what Christian faith enjoined, this desire, this hope. Not the salvation of oneself, or one's
community or the "Church" but all things - and indeed the consummate
obliteration of Hell.
I
write to innocence, desiring innocence, and an end to this sick, sick saga of
hatred and death. If I am wrong I am
wrong, but have I not the right to write? God bless the Reformation and the Enlightenment
for granting me this right. The truth,
because it is the truth, does not need to be defended. This cruel world is so weird and so wicked
and so incredibly boring.
Mercy
is mercy. It cannot be compromised. It
cannot be mixed with its opposite, damnation. When mercy assumes centre stage,
damnation is at once banished. Mercy is
not an act that waives a just punishment as a consequence of the fulfilment of
certain conditions- for example, contrition or the granting once again of
obeisance or honour to God. Mercy is a
feeling and an act. It is a feeling of love and compassion. It is an act of
gentle revival, the perpetual dissemination of insight, teaching and
liberation.
The
certainty of universal salvation is not based upon any idea of the
"intrinsic goodness" of humanity or the inevitability of its eventual
"submission", but upon the tenacity, unboundedness and ‘insanity’ of
true love. Such a love is not so very
strange in-itself. A good mother knows
what this love means all-too well. It is
only a Ruler who is without compassion, who is alienated from his subjects, who
is drunken with and stuffed full and fat with ludicrous theological and
philosophical ideas, who finds it impossible to understand the nature of this
love.
A
God who does not love the creation is a God that does not exist. God is the creator of all things. Therefore
God is the parent of all things, inanimate and animate, non-human and
human. Not only is he the parent of all
things, he is the perfect parent of all things.
As the parent of all things, he is the perfect lover of all things. And so it is, therefore, that what Christians
are inclined to say against universalism is complete nonsense- and not only
because what they believe is based upon a certain, particular interpretation of
pieces of wood.
God,
against his will and yet with a full and decisive will embraces a suffering, a
suffering which is evil. To do this is
against his will because suffering is evil and God detests evil, but he
embraces suffering with full will out of love for his creatures that are sunk
into their suffering and cannot escape it.
It is ridiculous to suggest that God embraces suffering - which is evil
- without the express intention of absolutely annihilating it from the entirety
of his creation.
God
can certainly do better than fail to save and restore all of his creation.
There
is nothing sentimental about love because there is nothing sentimental in a God
being slaughtered by beings that he is only trying to love. There is not even
anything especially beautiful about love, though of course in another context, in
a revived, more tranquil and more serene context there certainly may be.
In
the absence of love: morality; the orthodox - unorthodox polarity; fleshly
conflict and discord.
In
the Kingdom of God, one loves one’s neighbour and stranger with as much
necessity and inevitability as one breathes oxygen and eats food. Therein the
concept “enemy” will simply not exist. There will only be noted outside the
borders of the Kingdom, in so far as it is not yet universal, certain peoples
who are sick and afflicted and in need of our love and service.
One
thing above all I wish to see triumph: love,
that which for the interests of the other but also for its own interests,
cannot and will not endure the existence of suffering, any suffering, anywhere.
Love-
Ours and God's of the wicked and Satan and "Hell"
Certainly,
if we were to be fully, completely liberated from the yoke of "the
devil", he would no longer be any threat to us, but so would he not be if
he were somehow retransmuted back into a genuine creature of light and love.
Interestingly, this would not require the redemption of the Devil, that is
Satan. For Satan is not a creation of God, just as fallen man and the fallen
world are not creations of God. Satan, the Adversary of God, is the creation of
Lucifer, the morning Star, who out-of-himself created and became Satan. Thus,
the restitution of Lucifer, and with him the entirety of material existence, is
not incompatible with the eternal annihilation of Satan, just as Pre-fallen
man's restitution is not incompatible with the eternal destruction of fallen
man; in fact, the restitution of both is only realised and guaranteed by such
destruction. Indeed, Satan's own higher will is that he be destroyed just as it
is fallen man's own higher will that he be transcended, overcome, surpassed and
transmuted into the golden, immaculate image of the deity- Christ himself.
Since
God did not create the Devil, just as he didn’t death and Hell, the Devil has
no part in the consummation of God's restored universe. The torment of the
Devil can only last as long as time exists, as long as day and night endure;
for only within the context of time as we know it can the phrase "for ever
and ever" possess meaning; and that which is "everlasting",
though it last a very long time, can only last as long as things are able to
last, that is, as long as time endures, that medium through which things can
"everlast."
If
Sin, death, suffering, damnation, darkness, hell, evil and the totality of
negative aspects of existence are to remain after the end of time, then it
would be shown that such aspects - to be brief let us call them evil - are
eternal, that is, independent of time. But if evil is eternal and endures after
the end of time then, being eternal, it must have existed before the beginning
of time. But to call evil eternal is either to call God evil or to assert that
God in eternity faces an eternal rival, an eternally opposing being of darkness
and death. To assert the former is to question or dismiss God's holiness, the
latter to embrace the oriental cosmogony of a cosmic duality and be bound
firmly in the shackles of a cosmic pessimism, one compelled to affirm that evil
is a necessary part of any future creation. For in either case, the creative
force is in part evil and must for certain mark that creation with the mark of
its own nature.
Some
want to save and restore what is evil so that all becomes good and better than
good; others to protect and liberate what is good from what is evil, leading
the good to eternal security, driving evil to its ruin, thereby building an
eternal dichotomy of light and darkness, health and suffering. Yet that in this
scenario the light is fully separated from the darkness does not alter the fact
that the darkness perpetually exists and so by existing perpetually mars the
universe and renders it perpetually imperfect.
The
totality, the universe, contains all; nothing that is created lies beyond it.
Therefore, Hell is a part of this totality and for being imperfect renders the
totality imperfect. The totality can only become perfect if Hell itself is
annihilated. If it is not, it will perpetually inform and influence the very
nature of the good- obliging it always to be remembered as something owing its
essential characteristics to the existence of that darkness and evil against
which it reacts. But this makes evil something eternal, something powerful
enough to influence the essential nature of the perfect. What, can we not, even
in perfection, escape the memory and influence of this abomination?
Love
must be for all things; if it is not, it is not love but preference, partiality
or favouritism. In consequence, we must not only love God and our fellow men
but demons and Satan himself. For if we do not love the devil, how can we claim
to be confessors of the Gospel of Christ, which is Love, or else claim to be
enemies of Satan's role, dominion and Gospel, the Gospel of hate? Yet each
needs to be loved according to his nature: God for being God, in the way
appropriate to God, man for being man, in the way appropriate to man and the
Devil for being the Devil, in the way appropriate to the Devil. Each way and
form of love is different.
George:
"What we want of Satan is not his redemption. Satan only came into being, his being as
Satan only makes sense, within the context of hell. Since Satan takes his identity from Hell it
is impossible for him to exist as Satan outside of it- and it is to deliver
Satan from hell that is precisely what we want and what we would mean by his
redemption. Consequently, in terms of traditional understandings of redemption,
Satan cannot be redeemed, for if he were, either hell would swallow up the
entire cosmos, such as to accommodate him or, as would in fact happen, Satan
would cease to exist. Satan needs to be
in hell, hell needs to be his environment if Satan is to be what and who he
is. And so it is that Satan cannot be redeemed,
that is rescued, from hell."
Can
God hate? Has Satan then won a triumph
and through his revolt imputed to God an alteration of his eternal being? T'is
impossible. God will not hate, and
cannot; nor does he damn but damns himself out of love.
Satan's
redemption, the transfiguration of the energies he stole, the return of the
morning star, bright and wild, joyful in excess, will entail the total
destruction and annihilation of Satan's being, delivering him from himself and
the energies of instinct from Egypt, where, enslaved and subjugated, the cruel,
crucifying face of the stony moral Law bleeds cold the vigorous of
self-sacrificing love.
Thomas:
"The Christian is saved, irreversibly and irrevocably. The Christian is
set free- his freedom compels love, which is life. The Christian, overflowing in and with this
love, desires the salvation of the damned - to spread and suffuse the fullness
of this life into the outermost recesses of the universes.’
So
it is therefore that the Christian, not because damnation is a good but, on the
contrary, because it is an evil that exists, invokes upon himself, as Christ
did on the cross, the damnation of others, in order to liberate these others
from the accursed state to which they are subject and so bring them into the
blessedness of Salvation, the state which they themselves, like Christ,
irreversibly enjoy.
Obviously,
it is clear that Satan should be loved least of all things and beings, that the
author of evil should in a very real sense be despised. On the other hand, in a very different but
still pertinent sense, with respect not to esteem but concern, it is surely
clear that Satan should be loved the most of all things and beings, indeed that
Satan should be the ultimate focus of all the love in the universe- not, I will
stress at once, because he is good, imitable or loveable, but for all the
contrary reasons: that he is wicked, that he does not invite to life, that he
is the propagandist and champion of death, despair and all manner of ruination.
We
should remember- Satan operates exclusively within a world of hatred. He is familiar indeed, to an expert and
peerless degree, with all its machinations and manifestations and in his own
lunatic, very pitiful way could no doubt floor any contestant in his ridiculous
game of pointless dereliction. He, on
the other hand, knows nothing of love.
Building as he does his whole endeavour on the absurd conviction that no
such thing exists, he has thought nothing of learning and progressing in its
splendour and is thus supremely unskilled in its art. Being the criminal possessor as he is of an
earth that he can only corrupt and which therefore only corrupts him further in
its turn, it is best for everyone, for the earth, for us all, and for Satan
himself, that his unfortunate suzerainty over the earth come to a swift
close. It is Almighty God and Almighty
God alone who knows how to bring peace, fulfilment and beauty to our Earth and
the sooner power and direction be put back into his hands the better for us all.
The
Christian, like Christ, stares into the void and, though frightened, is not
daunted. Out of love for the iniquitous
he will walk in and expect nothing of an eternal Salvation.
Not
merely must the innocent be saved from the wicked, the wicked must be saved,
must be delivered, from themselves. The
wicked have no duty, they can know of no such thing, being as they are
profoundly sick, profoundly starved of the sweetnesses of peace, love and
life. But the duty of the innocent is to
love.
"I
am a damned heretic and shall remain one until God grants grace to the
devil".
"Why
do I deserve any more than the least of the devils of Hell? Will this one day become the normative call
to Christian humility and service?"
We
have the whole of eternity to spend in heaven and in that which is above the
heavens so whilst in this our temporal world let us not be intoxicated stupid
by the thought of "heaven", and whilst not ceasing to invoke its
love, strength, guidance and power, let us keep our eyes fixed firmly on Hell,
Gehenna, on the vast expanses of suffering, pain, poverty, oppression,
dereliction and death that spread such pestilence and ruination throughout our
beautiful Earth and amidst our beautiful humanity. Evil must be annihilated from its roots.
Abandoning
Hell for the sake of Heaven is what the priest did when he neglected that
service which we see perfected by the Good Samaritan. If we are God's servants then we are here to
do God's work, to assist him in his purposes as his workmanship. Our primary function is to do his work, and
his work, we know, is a salvific work, so we exist to serve the creation and
everyone in it. Our job is not to fret
desperately about our own individual salvation, as we would if in fact we did
not have faith in God, but to concern ourselves rather with the salvation of
others, of those uncovenanted who lie outside the Church and Israel. But in our service let us not imitate the
bizarre "charity" of the Inquisitors and colonialists who justified
to themselves "in the name of God" all manner of tyranny by the
belief that by such they were saving people from the fires of eternal Hell. Let us not do this again; let us remember
that God is love and only love and that love is abominated by such an absurd
and abhorrent defense.
God
can enjoy his own innate peace and infinity even when in the depths of hell,
where he can love Satan without being overcome by animal vengeance. It is only a finite, contingent, vulnerable
being that will retaliate against and think ill of an evil doer. God is far, far, far too infinite and far too
majestic to be injured or roused to anger by Satan's assaults upon him. However much Satan despises God, however much
Satan rises up in war against God, however successfully Satan manages to wrap
himself and all his unfortunates into whatever labyrinthine web of suffering it
may this time be, one thing Satan will never achieve and that is to make God
turn from loving him and abandon him, stop working in zeal for his Salvation
and hate him. Satan, the most piteous
wretch the Cosmos has ever witnessed, is none other than that being for whom
Jesus most profoundly died, for love pays no regard, it pays no respect, to the
willful protestations of broken self-contempt.
For indeed Satan does despise himself, as must every being first do if
it is to despise under God's heaven.
Absolute
mercy, irradiated outwards and downwards from on high, without price and
without condition: this is Christianity.
If
the evil will is a sickness (only convenience leads us to deny this) and evil
actions its symptoms, are we then here to uphold, as not concerning other
sicknesses, or at least the vast majority of them, that the afflicted person is
responsible and to blame for their condition.
But is this consistent?
Heaven
is enviable but not because it does not suffer, not at least as yet. It does suffer, only not in itself but in
pursuit of hell.
Though it is of course a healthy and good
desire to want to go to "Heaven", there is a definite sense in which
we must resist its temptation if it means our desperate desire to get there
plays to the tune of our indifference to and abandonment of our fellow human
beings, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Humanist, Atheist,
Satanist, enemy, criminal, fascist, sadist, or wicked deviant. All come under the suzerainty of the
impassable, irrevocable love of God, a love that is urgent and ardent and bold
and listens not to the petitions of the merciless, of the bitterly vengeful, a
love that is merciful, kind, patient and gentle and takes its delight in the
things of peace, harmony, reconciliation and joy.
Facts
are facts- it is obscene to acquiesce in and affirm the suffering of another,
be that other God, Angel, human, demon or Satan, be that suffering experienced
upon the Earth, in Heaven or in hell, be that suffering physical psychological,
emotional or spiritual, be that suffering deserved or undeserved.
I
declare boldly that it is intrinsically unloving not to want the salvation of
the damned, that it betrays a weakness, an immaturity, indeed an inoperancy of
love not to embrace damnation for the sakes of the damned - not to back up
their salvation with the collateral of one's own body and soul.
Can
it be that Jesus Christ has any sympathy for, or understanding at all of, the
envy Lucifer felt and of the pain experienced whenever existence comes under
orders and is humiliated and stripped of its freedom? Now Jesus, of course,
cannot himself feel envy as he himself is God. Does he, I am wondering, feel
any pity or love for those lesser beings who, unlike himself, have to accept
their inferior status and the contingency and sense of impotence and
suffocation which this involves.
Can
we then say that it was for Jesus any great trial or difficulty to obey his
Father? He was, after all, God’s Son, God himself, of the same substance as the
Father. It seems that a priori he is blessed with an ontological advantage over
us in following those principles of obedience and devotion which he enjoined
upon us to dedicate ourselves to. Different being? Same orders? Are things
therefore tougher for us than they were for him?
“Indeed
it must be so- God does not hate Satan. On the contrary he loves him, and of
course it is by loving Satan that God overcomes him, for if God were to hate
Satan, Satan would grow all the stronger. But we love Satan in the right way-
which is to despise him.”
Criticisms
of Humanity , "Christianity", Religion
We
have lost our sense for levels of being, of gradations in the framework of
ontology. In place of this wisdom we have constructed a system we call
hierarchy. In this scheme we place God at the uppermost pole and keep him
there, fixed, static, the prisoner of our obsequious idolatry. Between
ourselves and God are fixed mediating beings that bar the possibility of direct
divine experience and insist that our experiences of God be conformable to
specific types. Although day and night we worship a God who renounced his
majesty and assumed the form of a slave, we yet remain incapable of understanding
the devastating meaning of this divine gesture. Because of our belief in hierarchy
we believe this wretched and despised Jesus was still in fact, despite his
outward appearance and internal commitment, the same mighty sovereign God in
the sky we are accustomed to depict sitting atop a mighty imperial throne. By
so misconceiving Jesus' ministry, by negating the force of Jesus'
identification with the outcast and oppressed, we bring to nought the
transformative effects Jesus' life was intended to bear upon our systems of
hierarchy. For clearly, if a King becomes a slave, he ridicules all systems of
hierarchy.
Whilst God is the absolute, the
eternal, the omnipresent God, he is also the filthy wretch, the accursed
blasphemer, crucified in desolation outside the city walls for crimes against
the state and against God.
Indeed
God is in the highest echelon of heaven and above heaven, exalted above heaven
still higher. But he also wails and screams in crushed humiliation, afflicted,
despised in the very lowest regions of hell. Above us is God and below us is
God and between God and God is man persisting in stubborn blindness, capable
only of attributing to God the hatred he feels for himself.
God
is not only insulted but saddened by our worship. Insulted because we do not
worship him but rather only our images of him- which is idolatry; and saddened
because we perpetually attribute to him those qualities that he would far
rather we cultivate in ourselves. Love, mercy, understanding- God is well aware
he possesses these qualities in exemplary fashion and does not need us to
remind him of the fact in the ritualistic, self-effacing manner in which we do,
in a manner, moreover, that effectively alleviates us of the responsibility of
emulating and practising these virtues for ourselves. For by setting these
qualities at a distance, far off, and projecting them onto an inaccessible deity in an
unreachable heaven we thereby distance ourselves from them and consider
ourselves unworthy of practising them towards others as God practised them
towards us.
Real
worship of God is imitation of God, which means that we must love others, have
mercy on others and be crucified for the sakes of others if necessary, as Jesus
loved us, had mercy on us and was crucified for us.
Just
as we think God doesn't care for humanity so we feel free not to care very much
for humanity ourselves. God, so we believe, is only really concerned to get
himself worshipped by human beings. That we believe is his reason for wanting
to create and later redeem humanity. To satisfy his vanity, to get himself
correctly worshipped by that which he created. So we believe that God does not
value us for what we are in ourselves but only for what we give him- namely our
worship of him. Thus, we turn God into the great Cosmic demander, a great taker
who damns those who don't give him this worship and saves only those who do-
moreover, only those, it might be added, who give him this worship in the
correct manner. To understand God as the great cosmic giver who demands nothing
from us for himself in return save that we model his example and give ourselves
abundantly to our fellow men, is a model of God that is clearly
incomprehensible to Religious practitioners.
God only wishes us to worship him because,
through worship we come to concentrate
our attention upon him that we may learn the lessons he wishes to teach us and
struggle against our conditions, the consequences of the fall and be able to be
blessed more and more with the gifts that he wishes to give us.
The notion that worship is an eternal and a priori characteristic of man's
relationship with God is clearly insupportable, for if our attention is always
upon him and we always receive his wisdom and there are no fallen conditions to
struggle against, for which we need his help, then for what could we be
gathering together and confessing and appealing to him? In such an environment,
we would lack nothing and have no sin. We
may/would indeed continue to praise God but we would praise him not as something
distant but immediately present, not as something that atones for sins (for we
would have none) and not as something that provides for us in our distress or
graciously grants us those things for which we petition him? What then would
our praises be and for what would we praise him?
God
calls on us to let him enter our hearts that we might become like him; in
effect, therefore, he calls on us to be God, to let ourselves become God. We,
however, refuse his call, spurn his teaching, fail to interpret his son's life
as a call for the overthrowing of Religion and keep him forever separated from
us by striving to perfect his worship. We thank God for having given his son to
the world and then refuse to accept him through a false and pointless self-abasement.
Consequently, along with God we reject his estimation of man as a worthy vessel
of his own substance.
True
Christianity is not the struggle to win back one's union with God or ensure
one's salvation; it is not a factory for the manufacture of spiritual supermen.
We cannot of our own will ascend to God but, by descending, God can unite
himself to man- as God did in Christ and now wishes to do with us all. Indeed,
qualified only by our own rejection of him, all people are now united to him.
The obstacles that separated man from God have now been removed through God's
incarnation, his experiencing of mortal life and death and his triumph through
and over it. Salvation is therefore not something one needs to win or struggle
for, nor is it something one can lose. Though it not be realised and actualised,
salvation is the inalienable property of everyman.
God
is only angry because man is angry. It was man, not God, who introduced
punitive wrathful morality into the world. It was man not God who conceived and
gave substance to death, which for God was only an idea to warn us against. It
was man who brought good and evil to his own knowledge and so lost his
regenerate innocence, who sunk down into egoism and learnt the evils of guilt,
accusation, judgement and hatred.
God,
reflecting back to us our own acquired baseness now spoke to us not as the
friend and intimate lover he once was but as the cursing, condemning, furious,
punitive God that makes his first appearance only in the latter part of Genesis
III. So it is change in man that wrought a transformation of God's external
personality
When
God says "I am that I am" he says that for being exactly what he is,
he is exactly what he wants to be. By defining him as something, anything,
according to an image, from earth or heaven, we strip him of this right and
force him to communicate to us through, and in, a fixed identity and image that
we have imprisoned him into through our worship. Thus, we effectively kill him,
rendering him capable of being only the dead God of old, making it impossible
for him to communicate to us as the living, vital, indefinable God that he is.
And so, not surprisingly, when he comes down as a human being, we fail to
recognise his divinity and crucify him for the crime of offending and
challenging our fixed, rigid, conceptions.
The
Christian should not act, feel, think, believe in a certain way that his sins
may be forgiven and he saved from punishment. The Christian, like all men, is
saved, there is no possibility of punishment; because of this, and his
knowledge of this, he acts, feels, thinks and loves towards others as God
acted, felt, thought and loved towards him. He loves and brings salvation to
others as God loved and saved him and if necessary he is prepared to sacrifice
and lay down his life for others as God sacrificed and laid down his life for
him. The Christian life mirrors that of Christ. Just as Christ sacrificed
himself for humanity, both in his ministry and experiencing of death, so we
sacrifice ourselves, not for God, to whom we have nothing to give, but for
humanity as members of Christ’s body and extensions of his power.
True
worship is not something performed but something perpetual, without beginning,
end or specific form; the essence of this worship has moved on from the
flattery of God and self-effacement of man to the active doing of God's will:
the sacrifice and dedication of oneself to the service of the all.
Indeed
it had to take God himself to put a final end to this idolatrous worship of
God. Only by putting an end to this worship could God's purpose proceed: that
of divinizing the Creation and restoring all things to Christ. With this
realisation, passes one kind of worship and commences quite another kind.
Two
thousand years on the Cross seems to have done nothing to turn our hearts from
the cruel idolatry of dualism, and so our murder of God continues - pathetic,
infantile, a true, decisive criticism of our species. One wonders in a weaker, less hopeful moment
whether we shall ever learn the elementary lessons of love. As a cynical aside, I might think not; after
all, what evidence is there to go on? There is no evidence. We are still sub-spiritual, sub-christian,
now as ever. Our lust for enemies is
undaunted, rapacious, indeed it would seem omnipotent. How difficult we make it for God to speak to
us! We think that in defending God's
honour by defending his "name", his "Religion", his
"Law", his "Church", his "people", his
"spirit", by punishing and despising those who hurt and profane these
things, that we are actually serving God's will- when what we are really doing
by spreading fear, divisions and hatred is opposing his purposes and crucifying
him. For there is no Hell except the one
we sustain in existence through our hatreds of one another and our failure to
address the Christian Gospel of mercy and forgiveness to the World.
Though
understandable, it is truly a defeatist idea- to think people must always be so
irresponsible that they will only act decently if they are terrified senseless
of acting otherwise.
Mankind is the image of God not because he
possesses this spurious agent, "free will" (in reality the freedom to
submit to threats of absolute terror) but because- and the following words are
crucial- when he is awake he knows what is right and good action, and because
in such a state he praises God perpetually, without even the conscious exertion
of the will.
Be
not deceived- he who puts people to death in the name of Jesus puts Joshua to
death.
"He
who will put people to death and consign them to Hell in the name of Christ
puts Christ to death and damns him."
To
most people, God is authority and authority is God, as if God would then cease
to exist when all traces of metaphysical regulation have passed away, as they
must.
It
is when I know I am loved by the one offering knowledge- it is then I learn, it
is then I listen.
Religion
by asserting in the abstract that God exists has exalted power hungry man as an
idol and banished God from omnipresence. God, in the deep, impenetrable silence
of his being cares not for his honour, for how people view him or that; for
example, he is a crushed wretch and associates with criminals.
The
desire to be worshipped is the last and worst of all temptations.
"God
does not give the Cosmos the "opportunity" to be saved. He forces it to be saved. God is a virile God, a hunter God, a strong
and unyielding God. But he is also a God
who is only love, only light, neither knowing evil nor capable of committing it,
and so when incarnated among us he strives with zeal to help us. But if as so
often happens we reject and despise him for the peace and love he freely wishes
to lavish upon us, he allows us to crush him- holding out neither malice nor
vengeance towards us, loving us with no less of a love, striving to help us
with no less of a commitment. I would
not be a Universalist if I did not believe in this utter impassability of the
love of God. Our persistent hatred of
God and the wisdoms of God, as history testifies leads always and only to our ruination. It never hurts God, for we, our energies and
our powers are but dust before his infinity.
Our hatred of God hurts only ourselves, because it robs us of the
possibility of the fountain of health. It does not hurt God; it does not even
touch God. He is entirely impregnable to the childish leaps, the pathetic
bounds, the insane and most piteous vortices of the hatred we hold out towards
him. As untouched by it, he is not
roused to vengeance against it, and he continues to love us, as much as if we
adored him. And so it is that God loves
the "wicked" no less than he loves religious, moral and virtuous
people; he simply loves them in a different, less satisfactory, because
unreciprocated way. This is our
creation, because it is we, not God, who have to live in it. If it is tumult and chaos because we
selfishly and senselessly abuse our responsibilities, it is we, not God, who
have to face the consequences.
The
idea that God does not want, independently from ourselves, impassibly within
himself and in himself, to improve and redeem the lot of his pitiful human
beings. It is this idea that lies behind the centuries old tyrant belief that
God is far more disposed towards damning and torturing human beings than
towards doing that which always remains an unavoidable adornment of his being,
that is, serving and loving everything and everyone without restraint in an
impassibly and non-negotiable commitment.
If
Christ is committed to all of humanity and Christians committed to Christ, it
follows by extension that Christians are committed to the whole of
humanity. The direct meaning of
Christianity is the service of God but the indirect and focal that is the
secret and real, meaning of Christianity is humanity. God is the eternally self-existent, self-subsistent
creator of all things, independent, pre-existent, in no way in need of his
creation for his own self. To suppose, therefore, that we serve God because he
needs such a service for himself is plainly ridiculous- in fact absurd, if not
a little offensive and of course arrogant on our part (as if anything we are or
do can be of the slightest help to him.
The creator can only create things which are less glorious and perfect
than himself, and if anything is to approach anything even vaguely close to equality
with him, it would have to be the totality of the creation, that is the whole,
that is everything AS ONE.) Ultimately, we do not serve God- he does not need
us. God, however, does serve humanity and we do serve God by assisting him in
the work of service which needs to be enacted through us if it is to have any
real effectiveness. And so God is a humanist, Christians are humanists and the
work of God is a Humanism- which is simply the service of humanity, which lies
behind the call of Abraham, the election
of Israel, the incarnation of God and the mission of the Church. It is both absurd and offensive to allege
that God despises what he has created (the Augustinian madness of Original Sin)
or that he does not love everything that he has created equally (a species of
the dualist heresy) or that he will, presuming appropriate responses, allow
aspects of his creation to forever rot and burn in hell (that product of the
imperialistic mind). This is nothing
other than the despair of man, the pride of man and the vengefulness of man
foisted onto God.
Being
a Christian has got nothing whatsoever to do with "being saved" as
opposed to "being damned". It
has, however, got everything to do with the process of salvation, not of an
elect portion of the cosmos but the totality of the cosmos. Christ remains crucified and Christians
crucified in him until all the universe, all the universe without limitation or
exception, is redeemed and resurrected.
Yet this should not be viewed in any sentimental or outraged light. It is the will of Christ, as it should be the
will of every Christian, to see all things translated into love and the very
concept of "enemy", which is THE curse on existence, extirpated from
all consciousness and obliterated forever.
I
do not respect submissive views of piety.
God created us to be active creatures not passive mirrors.
Sometimes, out of the love of love, even only
out of the love of our common humanity, it is necessary, even with a
crypto-promethean rage, to oppose "God" and the things of
"God"- always of course whilst actually thinking and believing that
the true God himself is as merciful, indeed, because he is God infinitely more
merciful than we are, as we gaze out with desperate, unyielding eyes of love
upon the cosmos, as we long that all might be well and that peace and light
might absolutely reign in all things, turning all things into the depth and
height of love, the face of God.
The
Church is the activity of Christ in the world.
Thus the Church does what Christ did when Christ was in the world. It is the servant of the outsider, the
stranger, that human community that exists beyond its own boundaries; it is for
this community that it lives, breathes, moves, prays and suffers. Thus the focus, vision, directedness and intentionality
of the Church are outward, beyond and away from itself. The Church does not
exist to work and pray for its own salvation but that of all humanity.
Universalism is not an option for the Church but a foundational necessity
without which the Church must fail to understand its own meaning and purpose
and by extension fail to reap success as the workmanship of God. Christ came down from heaven not to save
himself but to save and redeem lost, fallen humanity- all humanity. How then can it be that the Church should
feel justified in exclusivism and insularity, in introspection, self-protection
and the delineation of salvation when their Lord, their God, their model of
imitation is in all things the express image of the exact reverse and contrary
attitude? Did Christ not renounce heaven
for the sake of the Earth? When on Earth did he not abandon respectability,
abandon the ways, habits, judgements, prejudices and hatreds of the world and
reach out in service to the very least?
Did he not resist the temptations, the consolation of the thought of
exclusivism, that most comfortable awareness that one belongs to the only
community worthy of God's favour and salvation?
Did he not have his face set against violence, punishment, political
aggression, vengeance and the cool, rational instincts of human ambition and
self-preservation? Having been cut off
from the Earth by his own people, his own flesh and blood, did he not descend
into hell? As ascended Lord, did he not
approach Paul with a new revelation: to spread the light of life to the
Gentiles also, not only throughout Israel?
Does not Christ direct his energies away from himself, to what is
outside himself, to that which is not himself, to those people who do not know
the peace and joy of God. Indeed,
Christ, out of love, negates himself to make room for others. By renouncing his majesty and taking upon
himself the form of a slave he strives and works to elevate us to the level of
his own majesty. Yes, out of mercy,
indeed, out of mercy, but also out of love, and out of will, out of love
because he does indeed love and only loves but out of will also- and he is
entitled to his own will.
Life
contains two types of people: Those who hate duality and those who take it for
granted. The first group are strangers
in this world, outsiders, introspective, intense, and philosophical (as anyone
would be who lived in an alien landscape).
To these the maxim "Love your enemies" is not shocking since
everyone to them is friend and enemy because everyone alien. The second group are fully citizens of this
world, at home within it, taking its standards, values, habits, judgements and
ambitions for granted unreflectively, working within its boundaries without
hesitation. To these the words
"stranger", "friend", "enemy",
"neighbour" and "lover"' all possess exact, specific and
circumscribed meanings. These are those
who reason and operate dualistically, who judge, hold prejudices, discriminate
and evaluate a person's value in terms of their external (or internal, what's
the difference?) performances, beauty, adeptness, strength. For these, love is never a truly
self-abandoning, self-negating affection but one that must always retain its
roots in and contact with a certain well-defined and self-aware ego. These are
those for whom love is a transaction.
Yes, they give of themselves but always expect and want something back,
a dividend from their investment. Consequently, love for them is not an
affection and certainly not a commitment which they suppose God wants them to
spread out and irradiate over everyone: family, friends, neighbours, strangers,
foreigners, wicked people, demons and devils. To these, the universe, like
their own minds and hearts, is split into like and dislike, sympathy and
antipathy, purity and impurity, beloved and hated, comforting and frightening,
familiar and strange, good and evil, light and dark. These divisions to them are strict, unequivocal
and eternal, demarcating and separating the two competing realms, the heavenly
and the hellish. These are those who, although possessing enemies, yet fail to
love them- for to do such would confound and defeat their precious cosmologies.
They await salvation by their God and do nothing to strive for the salvation of
their enemies; on the contrary, these enemies are those who they insist out of
JUSTICE must go to this place called hell.
When these their enemies are in hell, they will do nothing to help them
get out of it, they will do nothing to deliver or save them from it- indeed
some may even gloat over the torments of these unfortunates. It will never enter into their minds that
they should be taking their place and deploying their energies, abilities,
power and freedom to suffer and strive for the goal of their salvation.
To
reiterate, it is not Hell I deny. Hell is within us, all around us and beyond
us. I deny the eternity of Hell, that is,
that it is everlasting, that it is never-ending, that those fortunate and lucky
enough not to be in it can do nothing through their love to rescue and save those
who are in it; that we cannot and should not pray to God that he intervene and
rescue those unfortunates who are in it.
Love is no crime- whatever its direction and focus, so let us love our
enemies, which is our duty, and love those who are in Hell, which such a Love
must imply; and let us not falter or renege from our duty, which is to proclaim
the Gospel of love and to dedicate and rededicate ourselves to the service of
our suffering and afflicted Earth, our humanity and our universe.
Two
errors tend to creep into practical, as opposed to theoretical and doctrinal
Theology. Firstly, that Jesus is the totality of God, an error making it hard
for us to believe he was a human being like us. Secondly, that it was not God
himself who died, which makes it hard for us to grasp the intensity and
boldness of God's own love for us, and that he has wished to identify himself
intimately with his creation and whatever its fate transpires to be.
That
which is priestly does not have its eyes set upon universal salvation- far from
it.
The
Priest is exclusively concerned with purification, a task reliant upon the
perpetual existence of filth and dirt.
Out of his natural human instinct for self-survival and career
defensiveness, the Priest must oppose and anathematize the doctrine of
universal salvation, that is the universal, irreversible and eternal cleansing
of all that is since such must one day spell his own demise. Only through the
scandalization of uncleanliness, only by declaring it untouchable, does the Priest
secure his own position.
Soteriologically,
the Religion of Methodism seems the most sane because the most loving; yet it
still suffers from the defect of apathy (it is only critical and dismissive of
the doctrine of eternal damnation.
Ultimately, it puts up with it.
It is not scandalized by it) and suffers, of course, from the general
Protestant defect of individualism. Not
that R. Catholicism or G.& R. Orthodoxy, mind you, are without blame
If
humanity as a whole is condemned, the individual, of course, is rendered
politically emasculated in a very efficient way. Original Sin is a theological tool for the
political subjugation of contexts and contingencies. Since all of humanity is
universally damned, individual human beings can do nothing of themselves to
escape their fate of eternal damnation.
Consequently, they are forced by the naturally implanted dynamic of
self-preservation to submit themselves body and soul to the overarching control
and domination of the thing which can transmit that which is necessary for
their salvation- the Church. Through its
priestly sacraments (and through these things alone) can the effects of
Original sin be annulled? Thus the
Pre-Reformation church bound to its control every human being natural enough to
be concerned for his own deliverance from the prospect of never ending
torment. The only people left in
resistance to this general, levelling submission, the only people over whom
other more earthly means of coercion were required to be exercised were, on the
one hand, intellectual free thinkers (and their followers) who stood up to and
rejected this doctrine and on the other selfless "Madmen" who
couldn't give a damn about their salvation anyway.
Christian
understandings of mercy implicate upon God a dual personality. On the one hand, God is a punishing avenger.
On the other, he is an all-forgiving lover. Not merely is God dual and
contradictory, he is also set over and against himself in opposition. His first personality eclipses the clarity
and coherence of his second personality.
His second personality is so alienated from his first that it strives
constantly to liberate humanity from it. This struggle of the merciful against
the punishing in God is so acute that it can be perceived that there is not
witnessed a duality, a struggle in God, but that there are in fact two rival
Gods at war with one another. This
indeed is the erroneous perceptions of the Gnostics that led them, in their
love for the tenderness of Christ, to clarify their own stance towards God by
identifying Jehovah with Satan.
It
is not God that punishes. It is the
structures and mechanisms of the world that punish.
It
is understandable that humanity should punish. Humanity is a fallen, twisted, decrepit
disaster. But to suppose that Almighty
God, the all-loving, all-perfect creator of all things should punish is quite
simply absurd. As I have said, it is the
mechanisms of our world, a fallen world which punish, not God, who is far too
busy looking after, loving and trying to restore and save the creation and
deliver it from its self-perpetuating bondage to darkness and death.
It
is beneath God to punish, it is ignoble, it is unmajestic, and so he does not
do it.
Pelagius'
error was to deny the fall of man and in particular its implication- that
mankind exists at a level of being beneath the one he was designed for, on
which he should be existing. Augustine's
worse and more devastating error, however, was to say that this fall was
intrinsically biological passed from generation to generation by the incredibly
natural and completely sinless act of sexual intercourse and procreation. This belief, obviously and clearly, damns the
created order, which is surely nothing other than a scandal and blasphemy
against Allmighty God, the Lord of Hosts, the
pure, immaculate, uncreated creator of all that is. So, both Augustine and Pelagius are mistaken;
but at least Pelagius stood in the tradition of ancient Israelite thought on
questions of sin and morality; at least he listened to the dictates and wisdom
of down-to-Earth, practical, common sense; at least he understood, like the
apostle James, that faith without works is like love without mercy -entirely
vacuous, null and void, worthless.
The
problem about Post-Babylonian thought is that it introduced a concept that had
not existed before-damnation. Against
this new, alien idea "salvation" underwent a transformation, becoming
the opposite of damnation and acquiring thereby a new meaning. No longer is it the concrete conditions of
actual, physical suffering from which we and the world need to be saved by
God. Now it is God himself, God the
punisher, God the avenger from whom we need to be saved- and strangely enough
we need to be saved from this God by God- extraordinary! An alienation, a chasm, a gulf, is
established between humankind and God of a kind that does not exist in
Pre-Babylonian times. Beforehand, yes,
life was not Edenic, nor were man and God fused together into oneness, but at
least before this time God and man were on the same side and God was working
for the interests and betterment of humanity, for its entire universal
restitution and indeed for the redemption of the earth. But after the exile all
this changes. God becomes the enemy, the
condemner of humanity and it is remarkable if any humans are saved at all.
Christianity
and Islam both believe that Sin is an essentially vertical phenomenon. The
greatest sins one may commit are those one commits against God (for example, by
not believing in his existence or thinking him evil, wrong, to be railed
against, denounced and opposed). Even
sins against one's fellow human beings are only interpreted as sins because they are sins against God. This is why these faiths are not stirred, or
at least have not until very recently been stirred, to moral indignation at the
idea of an eternal torment of human beings in hell. It is, of course, why these faiths will kill
and oppress and torture people in the name of religion, and why they can allow
themselves to be largely indifferent to the carnage of war, the plight of
criminals and the afflictions of poverty, homelessness and hunger.
It
is simply inconsistent to say on the one hand that god unconditionally loves
all people and on the other that he requires the slaughter of an innocent man
to make effective his love for a mere portion of that humanity by cancelling
out his wrath against all of humanity. If
he feels wrath towards humanity, he does not hold out love towards humanity. Are
there then two powers at work on high- one the power that loves, which sends
its son into the world to save humanity from the wrath of the one that
hates? This appears to be what's going
on. Is God then split within his own
mind and personality? Fragmented, shattered within himself, utterly mad? (Yes
indeed, but then this is not the true God, only the projections of our insanity
flung onto the canvas of the void. Anything, it seems, will be acceptable to us
but the brutal fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God incarnate, was
killed by the humanity he tried to serve.
To
say there is one way and only one way to conceive of and worship God is like
saying there must be only one way to love and delight in one's family, friends
or spouse.
David:
We will love anything and everything except that which truly needs our love. We
will love objects, nature, war, vice, money, power, sex, nation, religion,
God. Yes we will even love God, but come
way may we will not love our fellow human beings, our neighbours, strangers,
aliens and enemies. And so we render
ourselves all but useless to God who is a high God of love, who is crucified at
our hands and remains so until love reigns, to the glory and awe of his
shocking, unbounded majesty.
Our
love of the knowledge of good and evil, that is our hatred of innocence and our
love of conflict and judgement- which is our Original Sin - is the most
tenacious of all our loves.
It
is utterly, totally obscene to say that pre-marital sex is a sin whilst at the
same time saying it is not a sin to kill a heretic, Muslim Jew or criminal.
Jesus himself was a heretic, criminal and blasphemer, as is obvious from even
the most superficial reading of any of the Gospels.
Good
Christianity forgives an individual and releases him from both fear and
sin. Good Christianity liberates, reconciles,
unites and loves. Good Christianity does
not disdain variety, plurality, freedom of contextual expression but only
hatred and conflict, which sadly may, but need not, co-exist with a breakdown
in uniformity (witness schismatism, sectarianism, cultism- the degeneration of
the universal psyche). On the other hand,
good Christianity condemns centralist domination, the oppressive, normativizing
of the expression of worship and life- be this intellectual, emotional, liturgical
or practical. It resists dogmatism,
understanding it as something that earnt its historical currency from
essentially political factors in the Post-Constantinian era. It is mild,
gentle, loving, unaggressive and not cruel towards Jews, heretics and witches
(without nevertheless renouncing the gospel). It denies the doctrine of eternal
damnation, of eternal hellfire, of eternal torment, of eternal punishment as an
iniquitous idea, intrinsically flawed and false. Yet it withholds condemnation from those who
constructed it and believe in it, recognising it, as it does, as an idea of
political foundation and pastoral expediency.
It grounds itself on, and shackles itself to, the Rock of Love, which is
the fullness and consummation of the Gospel and indeed the entirety of the
divine revelation. It practices love, it
embraces love, it meditates upon the glory, the splendour, the beauty, the
miracle of love, it departs not from the way of love under any conditions,
ever. It waits in patience and certainty
for the triumph and victory of love.
Essential
error of religion- to suppose that it is anything but a means, an arrow, a
temporary necessity. To suppose that it in itself is the fullness of any true
or real relationship with God.
The
argument from Satan is just a cop-out, an effective evasion by which we dodge
our blame and responsibility and by which we comfortably drug ourselves into
inactivity on account of the supposition that “evil” people and not ourselves
are responsible for the problems of the world.
Mankind always blames God or Satan for the
evil in the world when it has not the guts, insight and shame to blame itself.
To
strip Christianity of its superstitiousness, to suspend from it considerations
of fear, guilt and militancy, to make it tender, mild and endlessly compassionate.
To remain true to the essence: love, forgiveness of sins, everlasting life
through belief in Jesus Christ.
To
speak of the Gospel, yes, but not merely- also and centrally to be it, to be
good news to pagan desolation, to embody for it a free gift, a free exit.
We
think perhaps that this world is ugly and bad because of the “forces of
darkness” when really it is so only because of us, because we make it so.
Life
without Christ is hell. Life without Christ is hopeless- its only solace, its
only comfort is illusion. But life, existence, is not hell. Life is not
hopeless.
Jesus
Christ did not lecture or preach. Rather he was and is.
What
is Christian morality? Christian morality, in essence, is that we love our
neighbour, that is everybody, as we love ourselves, that we treat our neighbour
as we ourselves would like to be treated. To say it is anything more or other
than this is dangerous. There is nothing to add. There is only a question, a
standing question, importunate, penetrating and massive: How can man love? This
question does not go away and will not go away until it is adequately answered-
not in theory but in concrete practice. Christian truth is simple. Perversion
begins with extrapolation. Christian truth is simple. Who can bear it?
Religion’s
failure is that it preaches the love of God above and before the love of
humanity when in reality one can only love God if one does so through the love
of humanity. This is why it has been possible for the Religious to be capable
of murder for the love of God. If things had been properly understood from the
beginning one would no more have injured another human being than one would
injure one’s God, one would no more have wanted to kill another human being
than one would wanted to kill one’s God.
And
this of course is the consequence of the incarnation: that to injure another
human being is to injure God and to kill another human being is to kill God.
It
was then I understood that authority, hierarchy and control derive not from god
but from man. Power and Judgement- these also come not from god but from man.
Man demands these things and cannot live without them. God then is compelled to
work within the forms and parameters in which man is capable and prepared to
accept him.
It
is clear that out of a terror of God I repress many of my angers and much of my
resentfulness towards the Bible, its interpretations in the world today and towards
Christianity.
Jesus
did not strive to be God. Neither should we - for we do not know what God is.
We would exalt an image, an idol and try to become that. Rather we should love
one another. This way we will become that which we had never expected to become
and in the process become mature sons and daughters of God, Gods ourselves.
Criticisms
of "Spiritual selfishness"-of the individual
That
age old desire of the Christian, to secure his own individual salvation against
the so-posited on- coming judgement and punishment of God. As if it were first
necessary for a person to be acutely selfish before he could even understand
the above mentioned mode of consciousness. Only to a humanity the inner
impulses of which are not directed outwards toward the hope filled desire for
the rescue and beautification of all men and all other beings; only to a
humanity filled full only of the instinct of self-preservation and
self-elevation; only to a humanity that saw his every neighbouring human being only as its acute rival, not as
its potential lover - only to such a humanity, only to such, could the fear of
individual punishment, of personal eternal damnation, act as a rousing call to
obedience and submission.
I
deny hell, even though out of will more than knowledge. Your threats, it seems,
will have no power over me. I lack that necessary desire for self-preservation,
that requisite selfishness. You threaten me will hell. You fail to understand
that so long as hell exists I want to be there, struggling against it.
"The idea that it is NOT a Christians
role and duty, if necessary, to humiliate and empty himself in love and
devotion to other people and lay down his life as a Sacrifice, as a ransom for
the deliverance of these others, is the single, most far reaching error to have
crept into the Christian community. The
idea that we should strive for our own individual salvation and interpret love
as a call to assist or, as it can be, threaten other people toward the goal of
securing their own individual salvation, constitutes a straightforward
inversion of the teaching of Christ and his call to follow him to Calvary. It was the concern of his disciples, each
utterly absorbed in their own egotistical self-devotion, to attend to the
interests of their own personal welfare, that led them all, except John, to
abandon and deny Christ and leave him a solitary wretch to be cursed and
crucified alone. It is this same
all-too-human, animal self-obsession which today dictates to the Christian the
concern to achieve his OWN salvation, his perpetual protection from Christ’s
self-annihilating damnation and crucifixion.
But to share in the burden of his burden, to attend not to their own
welfare but to that of others, that great and glorious reversal of the
instinctive priorities of the fallen self, the true inheritance of the
Christian revelation: is what Christ himself entreats us to.
I
think it is insane to live virtuously or believe in God either in order to
secure particular rewards for oneself in the afterlife or else to secure for
oneself an afterlife with God at all.
The point is to be selflessly devoted- for the sake of devotion, because
one is devoted.
I
have driven my face into hell and I shall not withdraw it until there is no
more hell from which to withdraw it; and so I shall not withdraw it. This does
not so much take courage as that simple, normal, natural, unspectacular kind of
a love which it is the peculiarity of our culture and our religions to be
divested of.
What
I want is this: To go down, to be used by the creative purposes of light, to be
sacrificed again and again, as many times, for as long as is necessary to see
firmly and securely and incorruptibly established a kingdom of peace extending
over and including the all.
......&
Sacrifice
In
the Old Testament man sacrificed animals
to God, in other words man gave to God, gave up for God that this might atone
for man's sins (or at least Israel's) and keep God reconciled to him.
But
in the New Testament, God, without man realising it, got man to sacrifice God
to God, in this way atoning for all man's sins for ever and so bringing all sacrifice
to an end. What value now can attach to anything man might sacrifice of himself
or his possessions to God since God himself has outstripped and brought to
nothing such offered sacrifices through the sacrifice of himself to himself on
man's behalf. All human sacrificing to God is now anachronistic, God having
made to himself, through Jesus, an everlasting mortal sacrifice. To dispute
this is to deny the atoning death of Jesus and empty it of meaning. This is not
to say, however, that sacrifice is overthrown altogether. Rather it now assumes
a different nature; sacrifice is now no longer made to God for the sake of
man's sins but rather to our fellow men and for their sakes - that they might also
know that their sins are forgiven and receive God's free, unmerited gift of
eternal life.
Self-sacrifice
is not for God (he needs nothing from us) nor for ourselves (the ascetic
mentality- exalted selfishness!) but for our enemies (whom we do not have the
right to consider enemies anyway). God is the eternally, infinitely un-animal
who is perpetually, with abundant patience, beckoning us to wake up from our
pathetic carnality and embrace without shame the infinite riches of his
majesty.
If
we ourselves do not get crucified with Christ, are we not in danger of ending
up not as the crucified but the crucifiers of Christ?
Of
course, it is not good to be crucified or to suffer in-them. Best above all if
there'd been no reason for Christ to suffer on behalf of the human race in the
first place. But Christ, who himself
came from the mansion of love, from heaven, who existed with the Father in
glory before the creation of anything that is created, who became himself
created to redeem the fallen creation, came to suffer in order that the multitudes
that suffer might be enlightened and liberated from their captivity to
suffering and death, and the entire creation be translated into the glory of
the all pervasive incarnation of the Father, from whom all light and wisdom
proceeds.
When
we crucify Christ, Christ out of love forgives us on account of our
blindness. The point for us is not to
crucify either Christ or ourselves but like Christ to acquiesce and give
ourselves over to whoever wishes to crucify us so that they, who think God
hates them, might learn that the opposite is true and one day be edified to the
stature and vision of God's wisdom.
"That
person who is not prepared and if necessary does not want to sacrifice himself
for the salvation of his "enemy" is not in his heart a true Christian."
Are
we Christians to follow Christ’s sacrificial example or not? I ask myself is it
my desire to lay down my own life, on my own cross, in order to strive after
and hope to realise the betterment and redemption of my fellow human beings the
answer that comes to me is Yes, always Yes, a billion times Yes and it has to
be Yes; what else can it be since for me Christianity has always only ever been
the struggle of love to triumph over all darkness. This Christianity, which is
the only one I can in conscience uphold, is crippled from first to last,
divested of all its hope and substance by the doctrines of everlasting
punishment and its perpetuity of darkness and evil.
Criticisms
of doctrine of eternal damnation
Unlearning
the fear of eternal torment is an exceedingly exacting, laborious and difficult
process. After all, even if one reacts over
passionately and too defensively against the notion and against those who
produced it, upheld it and still uphold it, this yet proves that one still
lives under its power, that one has still not yet unleamt it.
The doctrine of the eternal damnation is the
eternal enemy of Christianity- it always has been, is now and will continue to
be until it is utterly extirpated from our minds and vanquished. It is obscene, it is grotesque, it rips the
very heart out of Christianity, it turns the splendour and glory of God into
rank diabolical fumes. To expect this kind of behaviour from the most oppressed
and wretched of men may be understandable, but to expect this same base
vengefulness from a being of infinite being and eternal wealth, who not only
created, out of love, all that is but cannot be injured in any way by the
creation.....
The
doctrine of eternal torment is the eternal enemy of Christianity- it is this
doctrine which, if it got its own way, would keep Joshua crucified forever. It
makes an utter mockery of any lucid grasp of what it might mean that Joshua
should live and die for the sins and death of the universe. Absolute mercy, irradiated
outwards and downwards from on high, without price, without condition- this is
Christianity.
The
idea that God will punish the wicked is as much, perhaps more, a consolation to
the good- that their persecutors will
get hammered- as it is an effective discouragement for these wicked. So it is
then that this vengeful notion is a species of humanity's own incapacity for
mercy, foisted onto God.
How absurd- to accept belief in God because he
satisfies our preconditions, because we are satisfied he feels and reacts
towards the world, towards good and evil, as we do and as we would if we had
God's power. But what if it were revealed that God does not "reward"
the virtuous or "punish" the wicked? Would we then reject and despise
God for not being a creature permeated with our humdrum moral dispositions, and
for being a wholly other, far more exalted, far more merciful and divine
personality.
The
doctrine of hell takes the very sting, the very depths out of the mystery of
Golgotha. For if we know our enemies will get suitably hammered we will not
think for a second that the true meaning of the cross is actually that Joshua
wants us to follow him into hell and assist him in its total and utter
dismantlement.
Any
understanding of eternal damnation turns upside down and hammers into dust any
living, active, dynamic, coherent, tangible understanding of the love of God. As
if God were so small, weak and paltry that he could possibly feel vengeance
towards what he, out of his love, had created. As if God would actually behave
as we, we very unspectacular humanity always does.
The
doctrine of eternal torment is the eternal enemy of Christianity. It is this
doctrine which, if it got its way, would keep Jesus crucified forever. It makes an utter mockery of any lucid grasp
of what it might mean that Jesus should live and die for the sins of the
universe.
The wicked doctrine of eternal damnation
exists for two reasons. Both expose the
fallen, sinful, ungodly condition of man.
a)
We are beasts and need beastly, that is terrifying, motivations to act in
normal, sane ways towards our neighbours and "enemies” that is with
virtue, respect, gentleness and love.
b) We are beasts and in consequence refuse to
show mercy and compassion towards those who suffer from the sickness of
wickedness, of blindness, of darkness, of death and because we are incapable of
enduring the afflictions of those who injure us without reacting retributively
and wishing pain upon them.
The
wicked doctrine of eternal damnation is not Christian; it is in no way
Christian. It is now, as it has always
been, the chief obstacle standing in the way of the establishment and
development of a true Godly affection and orientation.
Besides,
even to have all this threatening talk of hellfire have any effect upon us, we
must first have abandoned our Christian duty of selflessness and taken upon
ourselves a sheer, loathsome selfishness that is, on the one hand, responsive
to such tyrannical cajoling and coercion and on the other quite indifferent and
blasé toward the pain and torment of those who suffer in this hellfire. This
doctrine is thus selfish on two accounts, one positive, the other
negative. Positively it reveals our
selfish concern to secure our survival against such threatening assaults. Negatively, it reveals our selfish
indifference towards if not our actual support for the suffering of others.
No
error has been greater, no error has spread more of a profound pestilence and
darkness than the belief that Almighty God is in the business of damning
people. This belief turns Christianity
on its head and emasculates its power.
Eternal
torment, were it to exist, would eternally mar God's creation and thus
eternally thwart and confound the purposes of God. Since God is Alpha and Omega, that which is
at the end must be what was at the beginning, but if eternal torment will
always remain, the "powers of darkness", as it were, shall have forever
scored a victory over God; but this is unacceptable, not merely in point of
view of God's sovereignty and providence but in view of the fact that such
would mean that God was not in control of eternity, which indeed is effectively
an atheism, or if not that then certainly a dualism and certainly neither
Christian nor Jewish.
If
by denying "Jesus Christ" I deny a man who approves of and supports
the eternal torment of conscious existents, then deny Jesus Christ without
contempt I shall. If such a denial means that I myself will become such a
tormented existent, then such a one I will become, lamenting only that God,
after all, was not as loving and charitable as I had hoped and believed he was,
that God all the time was not that bounteous fountain of love that had inspired
in me my love for him. Yet, when I am in
hellfire, tormented, do not suppose it was my desire to be there. I do not want to go to hell, but heaven yet
see no choice but to go to hell as long as hell exists, as long as Heaven
itself has not absorbed and conquered hell into itself. For hell itself is
suffering, materially, actually, palpably, transparently and unmysteriously. What else then can Earth and Heaven do but
stoop down and assist the tormented in their plight, liberate the tormented
from their situation and open wide the gates of Heaven liberally for all the
desperate and afflicted creation, which in its entirety was made through
Christ, subsists in Christ and must again return to Christ.
The
doctrine of hell is nothing but the assertion of the righteousness and
blamelessness of the hatred of people.
It
is better to go to hell than to Heaven and there decadently acquiesce in the
suffering of those burning in hell. But
we do not believe in hell - and if we are told that it does exist then we will
go there and stay there and never come out whatever the temptations of heaven
until hell itself is annihilated and we are thrown out with All Souls.
It
is not enough to say "hell exists but is empty"...we must affirm that
hell does not exist and has never existed. We have, in short, to dismantle unequivocally
condemn our post-Babylonian past. If we
do not do this we affirm only that we are dualists and a party to a cosmic
murderer, that we are selfish, introverted, indifferent and callous, that we
are despisers of the Earth, haters of mercy and wicked to our core. It is obscene in itself to be dualistic, but
to be dualistic "in the name of God" is disgusting and absolutely
intolerable.
What
I say I say in conscience; I speak without authority but in love; if I am wrong,
I am wrong and if God as a consequence wishes to send me to hell to hell I will
be sent and to hell I will go, sad,
disappointed, unhappy but, so I hope, neither vengeful nor animated by hatred.
"For
Lent in the year of our lord 1994 1 will give up the following things
Hellfire-
the evil belief that my beloved humanity is to be abandoned to eternal
torment
in an abode of punishment.
Heaven-
that is my egotistical desire to get there in spite of and in indifference to
the
fates of others.
Spiritual
and material selfishness, which is the essence of sin, the murder of God."
The
doctrine of hell is repugnant- affectively, spiritually, ethically and
aesthetically. It can be given no quarter.
Even if it were true, it would have to be denied. Some things are more important than the
"truth" ...for example the condemnation of cruelty and purposeless
punishments in all their forms. We deny hell. We do this first on affective grounds, that
it negates at once the Gospel of Love, then on intellectual grounds, that it is
only provable arbitrarily and can as equally well be disproved or at least
substantially disputed; then on spiritual grounds, that it is a species of the
pernicious and divisive, dualistic mind-set so typical of established
spiritualities; then on ethical grounds, that it embodies and represents a
supreme monument to the grotesque and profoundly unjust and finally on
aesthetic grounds, that it is ugly, tasteless, crude and in every sense vile.
If
the doctrine of Hell were merely false that would be O.K. If its effects were
limited only to the intellectual plane and it counted only as an error of
apprehension we would condemn it only with that mild dedication that we extend
to all other errors of intellect and knowledge.
The
intensity of indifference which Christians hold out towards the damned (I mean
in their callousness, not in their missionary zeal.) This is what has always
struck me as amazing given the fact that their religion is founded upon
self-sacrifice and upon love. Surely by very virtue of the fact that Christianity
claims to be a religion of love it cannot talk about hell at all (except in
terms of its utter destruction). What more consummate hatred is there than to
send creatures or people that the God one reveres has created in punishment to
such a dungeon of unending torment? What reveals itself, then, to be merely an
obnoxious excess of cruelty is that people are consigned to this hell, which,
allegedly, it is the delight of the blessed saved to gaze in to from afar, for
the innocuous and null-and-void crime of not believing in the metaphysical
significance of a particular first century Nazarene.
What
are the conditions in which a living fragment of existence can reject God, the
source and foundation of all things? If a being can act in such a way- to its
own suicidal ends- I am yet compelled to ask why it should act thus.
The
same question returns: What evil force, what iniquity has ever arisen within a
being except on account of the fact that the transmission of love to that being
or/else the acceptance of love by that being have not successfully come to pass?
Golgotha
The
crucifixion of Joshua is the most unjust event the universe has ever witnessed.
Do not talk then of the justice of God. God is superior to justice.
To
look at the cross and see in it an affirmation of suffering is a gross,
grotesque distortion. What the cross
really proclaims regarding suffering is the following: that it, in its
perversest form- in the scandal of Golgotha, is a phenomenon, that it manifests
itself in the rejection and murder of a God whose only will is to serve us,
that it crashes with all its impact upon a victim who is innocent, that all
blame and guilt regarding it and all other suffering everywhere is absorbed
into God and overcome and crushed therein, and that it reveals the love and
mercy of a God who resists not his persecutors but loves and serves them to the
end - and beyond the end.
It
is intriguing how the gruesome image of the cross has been interpreted as an
affirmation of punishment, not as the negation and overthrowing of punishment.
After all if, as it is said, God the Father punished God the Son, God punished
God; but if God, who is perfect, can be punished it is obvious that everybody
else, who is imperfect, can no longer be punished, (since under the force of
the evident impossibility of evading punishment through the practise of virtue the whole system of punishment
collapses under its own weight of insanity). Strangely, however, the cross has
been interpreted in exactly the opposite sense. So it is said, because God needed
to punish God, it is revealed that God is ferociously wrathful and angry, in
need of an infinite sacrifice to alleviate his infinite condemnation of man. It
reveals, then, that God is an enormous and monumental punisher- the revelation
of the cross reveals just how punitive and retributive God is. And so the
Cross, which should reveal the gentleness, mercy and non-retaliatory aspect of God,
comes instead to reveal that he is stern, harsh, judgemental and in every sense
vengeful and punitive.
Who
can deny that the reason for the absolute destruction of Christ, as
concentrated in the event of his crucifixion, is the achievement for the
universe- which was created through him- of the absolute annihilation of
suffering?
Faith
One
may, of course, interpret the thought that one might not get to heaven as a
lack of faith in God.
To
us, today, believing in God means believing he exists. But it could as much
mean trusting in God, trusting that God is faithful. This faith presupposes an
acceptance of his existence yet goes one step further. But in our sceptical,
atheistic world the question of faith is forced to revolve around the first
understanding. It is, therefore, of no surprise that the quality of our religious
life is so base, depraved and underdeveloped. We are stuck struggling to
believe in the existence of something, the divine that in ancient, pre-Socratic
times was never questioned.
It
is absolutely not culpable, absolutely not deserving of punishment not to
believe in God. It is only a God of
human construction that it is reasonable to believe in- essentially because it
was reason, indeed a particular kind of reason, that crafted him, established
him and set him aloft in the distant imperial heavens. But that which is imperial is a broken Jew
upon a crucifix; indeed, that which is imperial keeps the broken Jew on the crucifix
continually, afflicting him again and again.
For
many the assertion " I believe in God" means nothing other than
"I have subjected myself to a particular totalitarian authority and
resigned my rational, critical faculties for the purpose of escaping the fires
of eternal torment." A charming declaration.
In
no sense is it a sin not to believe in God's existence. It is only a darkness
and sadness.
Exclusivism
If
being a member of ‘The People of God’ implies I am not a member of a rejected
people, if there be such a thing, I decline to join. I exist as I breathe- to
serve the damned. The parable of the Good Samaritan proves that the compass of
God's love is not restricted to particular peoples of God. The absurd, noxious
arrogance of such disgusting exclusivism is what repeatedly leads to the
scandalous slaughter of God. I don't want to be saved. So long as there exists
a state that is, as it were, unsaved I want to remain forever damned. Hell- the
sole abomination, it is hell, gehenna, the abode of pain, suffering and
death...it is this that must be overcome and annihilated. The true meaning of
being saved must be that there is no longer anything to be saved from.
Dualism/Gnosticism
One
cannot believe simultaneously in a God of love and a cosmic struggle between
good and evil
Dualism kills love. It is the frustrator of Israel, the age old
persecutor of the Jews, the enemy of the Gospel, a force of darkness that
crucified and crucifies Christ.
Let
us wake up and be aware: It was the dualist disaster, which lies at the root of
our psyches, that was responsible for the tragedy of Golgotha and the
subsequent incredible interpretation of Jesus' life and death as the embodiment
of a necessary substitutionary atonement to placate the angry wrath of God.
This
model - all-too rational to our carnal reasoning - cannot but dismantle the
notion of a transcendent, all-loving God- as indeed it has. To think that God can in any way be moved in
the heart of his being towards hating anything that he has created is
immediately to dismiss and eradicate his transcendence. God cannot stop loving Satan whatever Satan
does. Only if he were contingent, finite
and conditioned like us would or could he be roused to feelings of
contempt. It is we who demand vengeance
not God, it is we who love and delight in the punishment of others, not God,
and it is we who demand and love these things because it is we, not God, who suffers
from existence.
Being
a Universalist is the committed stance that inevitably, irresistibly flows from
the conviction that evil, as a force, lacks a fundamental status in the
universe. Such an idea, of course, is
Orthodox. Yet the objection to Augustine
and the wider Church's attitude to eternal torment is based on my inability to
understand how such a vacuous thing as evil should persist, indeed be sustained
by God, into everlastingness despite both God's resolutely all-loving will and
the fact that all the creation is good and blessed. These conclusions do not add up and could
only do so if God himself were in part evil.
Existence
is a thing not of symbols but of flesh and blood. Existence is a thing not of abstraction but
concreteness. Concrete flesh and blood
is the fundamental, the base, the root, the given, the presupposition. Symbol
and abstraction is secondary, a procession, born of longing and pain, suffering
and hope. Heaven dreams not of the
abstract, but looks down concretely on the darkness of flesh and blood, serving
it out of its abundant love, penetrating all with its vision, yearning still
for its salvation.
What
the Orthodox Christian wants is to be delivered from existence, to have the
effects of Original Sin blotted out and erased, to be rescued and lifted up out
of an endarkened fallen world, to be saved through and in a hyper-spiritual
salvation from the body, the flesh, sexuality, women, the feelings, the instincts,
the intuitions, the passions, the senses, creativity, the imagination,
contingency, contextuality, space and time, history, the present, concreteness,
nature and actuality itself. But this is
Gnosticism, Orthodox Christianity, in this sense, is Gnosticism. And it is Gnosticism despite the fact that it
defiantly claims not to be and professes an allegiance to the idea of the
intrinsic goodness of the material creation. Whilst, granted, Orthodoxy's Gnosticism
is not as extreme as explicit, self-confessed, unmasked Gnosticism, it yet
remains Gnostic because of its particular understanding of the fall of man and
the fall of the created order. It says,
on the one hand, that the created order is good ... in this of course it is
quite right. In effect, however, on the
other hand, it effectively denies this by saying that mankind is intrinsically,
biologically fallen. This fall they hold to be ontological, that is to have
tainted, twisted and marred the innermost structures and reality of our human
beings. Though Orthodoxy does not say
that mankind is intrinsically wicked it does say that it is intrinsically
fallen. It understands, through the
doctrine of original sin, this falleness in a strictly ontological sense, not
merely in a moral, behavioural, affective, intellectual or spiritual
sense. Its condemnation of mankind is
thoroughgoing, unconstrained, profound.
This is why, according to the Orthodox faith people, all people, when
they die, if they do not "confess" Christ or "believe" in
Christ (an incredibly Gnostic",
metaphysical thing to need to do) go to a nasty, horrible place called hell and
are tormented there for all eternity.
A spirituality that renounces the Earth is
like a love that renounces insight.
Similarly, a love that renounces insight embraces punishment.
Traditionally,
the fundamental statistic has been torment and damnation- the rare exception
salvation. Moreover, this salvation is
nothing positive in-itself but only a mere negative exception from this
universal torment and damnation.
Traditionally, it is existence itself from which we need to be saved and
delivered- this life we have to live under the perpetual Damocles sword threat
of eternal torture. Now, I'm sorry, but
this is nothing if it is not a pure Gnosticism a pure dualism whatever Orthodox
apologists might wish to say in tradition's defence.
Orthodox
soteriology, though not a strict Gnosticism, a conscious and explicit
Gnosticism, is yet an event within the tradition and history of Gnosticism,
having appropriated and affirmed its essential tenets, even though this was not
done explicitly and only unconsciously.
Unfortunately
for it, Orthodox theology does not in fact affirm that Jesus Christ has
"come in the flesh." The true implication of a thorough, genuine affirmation
of such a notion is universalism and must be universalism. The Orthodox depreciation of this affirmation
is not, of course, explicit (as it is in Docetism), nor is it invalidated by
implication through any "Arian" depreciation of Jesus' divinity. For
indeed, actually, conceptually and theoretically, in its exposition of Jesus'
consubstantiality with the Father, Orthodox doctrine does declare that Jesus
Christ is fully human and fully divine and as such, therefore, has "come
in the Flesh." Unfortunately, however, in reality this action is subtly
yet very significantly denied in two closely interrelated ways. The first is
through the general anti-physical, anti-corporeal, anti-naturalistic
philosophical background to and framework of Christian theology. This renders
us unwilling to accept that in fact Jesus, the incarnate God, was a normal
human being like us. Rather, we like to
think of him in superhuman terms, as perfect in an ontological and not just
moral sense- an otherworldly, purely spiritual and ethereal being. The second way it is subtly denied is through
the doctrine of original sin which on the one hand damns all human flesh and so
makes of it a place of residence unworthy of Jesus Christ, and on the other,
related to this, separates the incarnate God from all other human flesh because
of Jesus' own innate biological exemption from it. Because, then, of this
general philosophical, neo-Platonic, neo-Gnostic background on the one hand and
original sin on the other orthodox theology unintentionally, without realising
it, effectively denies the affirmation the Jesus Christ has come in the
Flesh. The flesh he assumes, instead, is
an exalted and perfected human flesh, not therefore our flesh, this flesh but
rather another type of flesh altogether.
Similarly, it is a flesh that unlike ours, which because of Original Sin
is intrinsically corrupt, is perfect and incorrupt. Again it is affirmed: Jesus' flesh is
different to our own. But our flesh,
this flesh is what matters, it is our
domain, our situation, it is where we are at. lf Jesus Christ has not come in
our flesh it is meaningless and pointless to talk of him coming in any other,
purer, more perfect flesh. If Jesus has
not come in our flesh then he hasn't come in the flesh at all.
If
God is a dualist, the creation of the universe was his first and most
resounding mistake. But the created order is God's and he is not a dualist and
he loves all his creation and "the devil" is as nothing before
him. But this is so obvious- if there is
a God he must be like this or he is not.
Philip:
"The idea that matter is evil, and with it temporality and contingency, is
actually a deeply unspiritual idea- apart of course from being merely
offensive. The Gnostic or, as it were,
neo-Gnostic depreciation of matter is nothing but a depreciation of the created
order, therefore of the creation, and therefore, since creator and creation are
intimately associated, of the creator himandherself. This Earth, this life, this body, this
creation, exist, and they exist because God has wanted them to ((they would not
exist if he hadn't.))
Punishment
and Dualism-The relationship between the above is direct and exact. Punishment
derives its currency, energy and force only from the Dualist mentation; it has
no other basis... if it is not based in it punishment crumbles away and is
overcome.
Dualism-
the belief that evil has a fundamental self-existent ontological basis; that it
is not merely a sickness requiring charitable treatment but rather a conscious,
rational, self-feeling, self-knowing, self-choosing iniquity which by the eternal
sanction of an unchanging principle, be that Nature, Law, Justice or GOD,
necessarily demands a retaliatory punitive response.
Richard
“one is of course still left wondering: Why did god create the physical
creation if he will not allow us to embrace it without shame? If it IS vile and
corrupt why in Heaven’s name does it exist? It exists- therefore do not tell me
I cannot touch it, love it and move and walk about freely upon it. I’m sorry,
but as long as you do insist that I cannot do these things, so long as you do
not provide me with a reasonable, comprehensible explanation, how will I be
able to interpret your motivations as anything other than political, oppressive
and tyrannical. Do not expect me to hate or revile you, though certainly I will
be hated and reviled by you......
Miscellaneous
When
we renounce the God of this world we ascend in our beings to a point above the
stars and sun. For when Christ lives in us God lives in us; God is gnosis and
gnosis sets us free from the mechanality of stars, sun and moon. At such a
moment we stand before matter as master, not as tyrant but liberator, for
matter is glorified when led by the image of God but only well-regulated when ruled
over by the lesser lights
Yet, in this present world matter is not
even well-regulated. The light of the night, the moon, holds dominion; the
least of the created lights, which rules over the night and its obscurity has
become our prime object of focus and reverence. Man, potential image of God,
worships the moon, a being inferior even to organic matter. Quite how alienated
he is from his own and the universe's potential is hard to fathom. Indeed,
because of this lunar devotion matter is worse off than it would be if man
didn't exist at all. Ultimately Man should be God- embodied, extensions of his
own substance. Then, as God incarnate mankind would be superior to and more
powerful than the stars; so much so that he would overthrow their need to exist
and do away with the duality of day and night, good and evil and the seasonal
bondage of the creation.
The regulatory systems of the universe-
seasons., years, day and night, the moon, the sun, the stars, time, space,
mathematics only ever existed to be the temporary preliminaries to the miracle
of man, the microcosm of the universe and incarnation of God- necessary indeed,
but only to carry and order things in his youth, in the absence of his
attaining correct awareness and maturity. When Man is not awake in Christ
matter is obedient to God's mechanical laws, but when he is the entire created
cosmos is set free and transfigured, as the consciousness of the transcendent
God, which created the universe as something external to himself- charting it, binding
it with natural regularities and laws, meets in man Christ, the consciousness
of the immanent God. As God external meets God internal the created, fixed and
regulated becomes the uncreated, the creating, fixing and regulating. A
creation that possessed no freedom, because no divine consciousness becomes a
limitlessly free creation, as man, formerly a slave to inexorable necessity
becomes the exultant, overjoyful son, forever, perfectly in love with the
Father.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What
is Christianity- that an infinite being became finite and that an immortal
being died?
He
who cannot love his enemy abrogates his right to have said or done what ever it
was that offended that enemy and made him into an enemy. We owe one another silence if, when speaking,
when revealing ourselves we cannot be gracious and polite to one another in our
actions.
If
I end up getting sent to Hell I can only hope my friends win come and rescue me
... that is if I have any friends.
What
God wants is that we relate to him directly so that he can incarnate himself
into us and throughout the creation.
Created human beings, by departing in their
ignorance from God's instructions and bringing death into existence, have made
it necessary for something extraordinary to happen- namely the death of an
eternal and immortal being, the death of the source of life itself.
What
I really want is a tasteful, graceful denouement to existence, a peaceful,
loving, gentle, closing refrain.
A person who lacks conscience cannot be blamed
for his crimes just as a person who is blind cannot be blamed for not seeing.
Mr
Satan I would wager is simply that Gentleman who needs God's loves the
most. Without our precious hatred of Mr
Satan- one wonders, could we survive?
His
most Imperial lowness Emperor Satan at your most unfortunate service. Visas to leave my Empire understandably
applied for- to be found over by the window where the fight is shining.
Everyman
is a subject and I am subject to Everyman.
Paul:
"Investigate for yourself and you will see that the alienation between man
and woman is real, independent of our wills and insuperable. It seems the sensation of misogyny wells up
in me when with all my will I try to get behind the phenomena of the female and
then fail. This offends because it is
the rejection by the mother, that is this woman, of myself, that is the
Child. Sexual lust, analogous to the
Child's tearful, angry disdain towards the mother is then occasioned. This reduction of the woman into a sexual
object is caused as it were by this repetition of my own mother's rejection of
me which then, as it does now, caused panic, fear, frustration and incoherent
feelings of both anger and revenge."
If
it is said that the body of a naked woman is unclean or dirty what is revealed
is not that the body of this woman is unclean and sordid but that the
perception of this woman is unclean and sordid.
Philosophical and spiritual depreciations of woman and sexuality touch
not upon woman and sexuality but upon those who depreciate woman and
sexuality-Monks, theologians, philosophers, priests, moralists and the like.
God sees all women naked, he sees all acts of
sexual intercourse naked, and every act of female menstruation is seen naked
directly by him. Does this then make him a pervert? Or does it make these
things unclean just because he sees them?
But God sees everything, is then everything unclean?
I
delight in order but in an order that is innate, an order without authority,
hierarchy and control. Jeremiah's vision
of order.
God,
being the creator of being will glorify being.
The
glorification of being is joy, energy and delight planted firmly upon the
unshakeable foundation of peace.
Once
we have given birth to genuine mutual affection, to love, then ((and only
then)) may we labour on the reconstruction of society and the conditions of
life.
He
who is in Christ no longer sins against God; rather he sins against himself
since he does that of which the substance of Christ within him disapproves. For
those in Christ not to sin is not to sin against one’s true self, that is, the
Christ within. Only those outside of Christ, or rather those in whom Christ is
dormant and asleep, can Sin against God, a God that to him is entirely
external, conceivable only through the instrument of Law.
All
in the profoundest, most essential sense are Christ- either the
dormant-incarnated God, as opposed to the awakened-incarnated God that was
Jesus. Christians are the latter, the substantial aspects, limbs and
instruments of God, awake and incarnate in the creation, as Non-Christians are
this same God’s limbs and instruments, only those asleep in the inoperancy of
Life’s death.
To
obey, or rather to unite wills...but firstly to be able to. Until then, I will
not be able to love him. He could even force me to consummately be seen to be
loving him but I would not be doing so.
Can it really be that God is divided and
unsympathetic and hostile to me only because I follow impulses and desires the
origin of which I have not commanded.
Tim:
“What to you is the central horror of existence?”
James:
“The way one human face opposes another. All evil that exists derives from this
fundamental rejection. To embrace another human face, to affirm, console and
love it- this is the heart of the Gospel. There would have been no fall of man,
nor the Tragedy of the Cross, if humanity had not decided to forsake the
tangibles of love and slaughter his neighbour for the sake of cruel
abstraction.”
One
of the reasons I want Constantinian Catholicism to be the Antichrist is that
this would soften the understanding of this figure and of Satan’s work in the
world today. It would more easily allow for universal salvation.
“I
confound your vision of the universe. If you were God I would not exist.”
What
do I ((fear and)) object to- that I, simply by trying to transform and improve
life, by trying somehow to find out how we might love, will be accused by
Christians of being an Antichrist.
Existence
demands but one thing of itself- virtue.
There
is assuredly one privilege that Jesus possesses uniquely, a property extended
it seems, to nobody else: Jesus was freely permitted to think himself God and
to think this exotic but most wonderful, for most liberating thought, without
experiencing any attendant sense of shame, guilt or fear. To any of us to think
this thought, however, that we ourselves as individuals are God, or aspects of
God, is of course the greatest of blasphemies.
But
what am I saying? The Jews killed him precisely upon the pretext that he
proclaimed himself to be the Son of God- in essence Divine- and because for him
to do so was dire blasphemy. If then it was not the Jews who permitted Jesus to
accredit to himself a Divine identity of what entity or agency do I speak when
I say Jesus was freely permitted to think himself God. I mean that he was
permitted to think this by the God beyond his own consciousness by the
environment and backdrop of his consciousness, by his own conscience, by the unprecedented
nature of such a claim, and its own consequent authentic possibility as an
explanation of his own being, life and mission. But we do not feel permitted to
think this, not to think this that is free of guilt or fear- for if we do think
this at once we hear growling the condemnations of vigilant Christians and may
even imagine ourselves Antichrists or to have invoked upon us the wrath of God.
All this for having been attracted to Jesus’ own experience of absolute
cerebral freedom, and envious of him on that account.
“The
envy which I feel towards Jesus causes me, when I am aware of it, to feel
guilty. But what is it in Jesus of which I am envious? A) That by Christians he
is deeply, unconditionally and universally adored. That he is to be an
everlasting Ruler. B) That he need feel no shame, awkwardness or fear at
thinking himself at one with the Father, that he feels no timidity, doubt or
compunction at attacking and dismissing all and every other system or
philosophy of thought and action that departs from his own. His pre-eminent
right to be right and to know.
One wants this sense of freedom and energy
for oneself; not to deprive him of it but to receive it from him and to thank
and love him for it. Certainly one wants this sense of absolute freedom both to
live abundantly and free from fear and to be absolutely loved as one oneself
loves absolutely.
The
essential thesis of this book is that God
is involved in a two-fold project, to annihilate Human and thence animal
suffering and to elevate the quality of life to that level of excellence which
he himself eternally enjoys in his own being
As
an intrinsic part of this project God in principle sets his face against
Cruelty in all his forms
There
is therefore no abode of everlasting conscious torture.
This
assertion is fundamental to my thesis but so too is a re-interpretation of the
significance and meaning of the Easter event, that is the torture, death and
resurrection of Calvary.
To
Wit - that by it is not God's cruelty towards and judgement of man but man's
cruelty towards and judgement of man that is overcome and destroyed. In
becoming the victim of Man's evil and the sole object on to which it is
directed God breaks apart and disables the endlessly repetitive cycle of man's
vengeance towards man. All human vendetta's, grievances and hatreds, being
absorbed in God, and so vicariously deflected from their intended object, are
rendered inert and resolved to the astonished, scandalized, awestruck
satisfaction of all men. The Human victim is replaced by the divine victim and
the human anger annihilated in the divine scapegoat.
Central
to the successful consummation of this process is the necessity of the arising
in man of the feeling known as Repentance, or Metanoia, without which the cycle
is not broken. Thus God's essential act is that of the conjuror- to that extent
only stretches the ambition of his "magic". He could not force our
hand even if he wished, given the irreversibility of the autonomous nature of man's
existence. Beyond the exercise of this appeal nothing can be done- unless he
were to destroy evil by destroying the entirety of the creation itself..
This
principle, the importance of Repentance, explains the inefficacy of the Easter
event to restore the Earth over the course of the past 2,000 years.
It
is also a testimony to the Fact that God is not omnipotent as he has been classically
understood.
The
torture and death of God is the cause of the inevitable but as yet potential
Restoration of the Earth, the Resurrection its symbol, sign and promise. What
happened to and In Christ on the Cross is what has happened to the creation
since the beginning. What happened to Christ in the Resurrection is what has
not yet but will happen to the creation.
It
is only in a Divine inversion and humiliation of the location or rank of God,
the supreme standard of value, in the realm of judgement that man can be shaken
from his consumption of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil.
What
had been the justification for all acts of judgement, namely God, becomes
instead the object, the "sinner" upon whom they are inflicted.
In
consequence it is now impossible to associate notions of Virtue or
righteousness with the practice of punishment- unless absurdly one is to punish
the very principle that justifies that punishment.
One
cannot, if one is aware of it, punish a man for violating God's standards if in
punishing that man one is punishing God
Virtue,
Righteousness can so come to stand on their own, where they belong in
unadulterated light. Punishment and judgement join iniquity and transgression
in the category of darkness.
BOTH
MAN AND GOD ARE CRUCIFIED ON THE CROSS OF THE ABYSS THAT SEPARATES THEM BOTH
Universalism
"If
Adam's sin binds upon everyman the fate of death Christ's righteousness binds
upon everyman the fate of everlasting life.
God's love is stronger than our hatred, God's Will that we be saved
stronger than our will that we be damned.
One can now no more choose death than after Adam's sin one could choose
life. If one can now choose death then
After Adam's sin one could have chosen life.
But after Adam's sin one could not choose life since all were condemned
to die. As a result neither can we
today, after Christ's death, choose to die since all are destined to
everlasting life. Belief does not
determine whether or not one receives everlasting life, only when one receives
it.
Universalism
is the only tasteful Christian theology, as well as the only correct one- on
both counts because it is the only Christian Theology that is actually centred
in Love. "Your Salvation or my
Damnation." Such is the essence of the universalistic creed.
Universalism
is the only theology that deprives evil of a fundamental status and the only
theology that convincingly upholds the existence of an all-good, all-loving,
omniscient, uncreated, pre-existent, transcendent and creator God. Universalism
adds to the traditional properties of God, however, that he is possessed of
WILL, and of one moreover equal to his infinity.
If
Universal Salvation is not true a great, wonderful delight will remain
eternally unrealised.
I am a Universalist before I am a Christian
and if necessary without being a Christian.
I
am a Universalist before I am a Christian and if being a Universalist means I
cannot be a Christian then, alas, I am not a Christian. If to "strive to love too much" is
crime that places me outside the Church then there I am and there I shall be
planted.
Ultimately
being a Universalist means that one has identified oneself with the damned and
is prepared to face the consequences for oneself if one is wrong. It is of course a gross and obscene error to
suppose that because of this commitment the Universalist must necessarily be a
person who loves evil and delights in wickedness. Such an interpretation betrays an utter and
profound misunderstanding of the universalistic Christian faith.
Universal
salvation does not mean that everybody is really a Christian or that everybody
is destined one day to become a Christian but that nobody is tormented in hell
for all eternity - which everybody is to be saved from that fate.
Yes,
in effect the Universalist vision insists that people be denied the right to
damn themselves. But only a voice an alien to mercy and genuine self-sacrifice
could fail, surely, to discern in that vision the fire of true love...
When
I say I believe in a Universalist denouement I am saying only that I believe in
the eradication of evil, not through its separation from the forces and realms
of love but on the contrary by its total and utter absorption into such
triumphant love and its profound transformation by that love. Exclusivism, the limited
conception of atonement destroys not evil but the possibility of a
thoroughgoing correction of the universe- every chance of the fulfilment of the
designs of Love. Evil on the contrary it upholds and perpetuates, reconciling
it comfortably to a universe that Satan successfully and irredeemably alters
from its original design.
Fear
The
effect of being threatened is always and can only be to convince that one is
not loved unconditionally. The consequence of knowing such a thing is to know
that one's value and acceptability is tenuous and fragile. The effect of this,
of course, is the emergence of a desire to invoke that very reality of wrath
that is implied by the threatened to lie behind the threat. Thus threats, as
instruments for the promotion of virtue, are astonishingly counter-productive.
Free
Will
A
predeterminist outlook on human existence compels mercy in our hearts far more
abundantly than our typical, unsubstantiated, superstitious obsession with
"free will." For it is obvious that if it is believed a person has
freely chosen the life of sin which leads to death, this person in his death
will not attract much compassion. But the facts are quite otherwise. All death
everywhere demands our compassion, without qualification or condition.
"Though
God cannot force us to love him he does have the freedom to be crucified for as
long as it takes to evoke this love from us."
Evil
The
attractiveness of evil is power, the spurious luxury of being able to
manipulate and control. But the repulsiveness of evil is intense, perpetual
solitude, the utter banishment from the graces of human community.
Evil
is boring...... everybody with even half an eye for anything knows this. Conflict destroys the possibilities for life.
Evil
is the product of ontological instability, the ontological fragmentation of
human beings.
Israel
What was understood as a book that damned
everything but Israel is now, I trust, understood as a book that damns Israel
for the salvation of the world and the glorification of Israel, for the
salvation of Israel and the glorification of the world.
For
what is salvation for Israel is different from what is salvation for the
world. Each suffers without God their
own different damnation- and the absence of ONE salvation works salvation for
the other. For all the created universe
is held together by love and worked towards a universal redemption by the
uncreated, eternal and transcendent creator, who is light, who knows not hatred
and is only love.
If
we, reisraelizing the Christian faith substitute Israel for the kingdom of heaven
and the nations for hell we may begin, albeit with some modifications, to
understand anew - and this time accurately - what the function and purpose of
Christianity is. Just as Israel had a
mission and hope for the nations, so the kingdom of heaven has a mission and
hope for hell. Thus to speak of an
eternal hell is equivalent to speaking of an eternal failure of the hope of
Israel for the nations, the redundancy and vacuity of Israel's purpose, the
emptiness of the Prophets and the absolute pointlessness of Israel's original
construction. Can it reasonably be
supposed that Israel was brought into existence for the purposes of its own
salvation? Does this not annul the
promise to Abraham? But if the raison
d'etre of original Israel is universalism why is the same not the case for the
extension of Israel, namely the Church, the harbinger of the new, merciful
covenant of Christ? It is stupid, absurd
and plain wrong, as well as damaging, to deny the existence of Hell. This is tantamount to denying the existence
of suffering, grief, pain, sorrow and death.
But to deny that Hell is temporary is obscene, apart from being an act
that utterly eats out the very heart of Christianity and tears up its
roots. Either Christianity is founded
upon love or brutal malice, petty vengefulness and world renouncing
elitism. But if it IS founded upon love,
which it is, then hell's annihilation is inevitable since love can not endure
anything else.
It
has been considered incoherent and inconsistent both to deny Hell and uphold a
faith in Christ. It is interesting why
this should have been so Jews cannot
become Christians for obvious reasons- such would be to affirm that their brethren,
unless they too were to convert, are going to hell, that their ancestors (to
whom they owe their life, culture and identity) are in Hell and that the
Christian persecution of the Jews was valid.
It would be to turn their back on their Kingly commitment to one world
of Justice and Righteousness and affirm a cosmic dualism that would in fact spell
the obliteration of their God. It is
almost as if the Jewish people should be thanked and praised for having stood
up, theologically, to the history of our murderous Christendom.
The
belief in the power, might and ferocity of the devil cannot but (can only)
undermine and compromise the healthy, ancient Israelite faith in the one
monotheistic, Almighty and creator God.
I am of little doubt that before Sargon II's invasive and destructive
impoliteness and before the veil of Babylonian darkness was pulled over the
face of the Earth, nobody with half an ounce of sanity believed in Mr Satan the
way we Christians do to this day.
The
fact is this: In ancient Israel the sacrificial offerings in the Temple made on
behalf of the people were not made to atone for the sin of existing, the sin of
having been born through the mediation of the sexual act but to atone for
actual acts of Sin, transgression and iniquity committed on earth during and in
one's actual life here and now. The idea
that to exist is in-itself a damnable crime would have been considered not only
wrong but blasphemous.